A6 Rebooted

[louisa]

Courts of Appeal are notorious for upholding an original verdict. I remember reading the statistics and it was something like only two out of every 50 Appeal cases ever get upheld, mainly due to the fact that the Appeal judges know that the case has already been tried (by a friend probably) and deliberated by a jury, at taxpayers' expense.

Because of the facts as we know them today the Appeal should have been upheld due to a mis-trial. Evidence that would help the defence was either withheld from the defence team, lost by the police, or fabricated by them (I'm referring specifically to the notes made by the first person on the scene - the student conducting a traffic Census). The eye witness accounts were all extremely dodgy (for want of a better word).

As for the sweetshop alibi - it is conclusive, by this reasoning:

Hanratty was definitely in London ALL DAY AND NIGHT of the 21st. Proved and agreed by everybody to be beyond doubt.

Mrs. Dinwoodie was only in her sweetshop on the 21st and the 22nd. Therefore Hanratty could only have been in Liverpool on the 22nd.

The idea that he employed another man to go into this sweetshop is ludicrous. If this was the case wouldn't he have told this man (presumably a Hanrarry lookalike) to make as much fuss as possible, not just meekly ask for Tarleton Road?

[OneRound]

Regarding the view of the Court of Appeal they seemed to glide over a lot of things instead of staying with the specific detail and answering it exactly---for example --they have no explanation for the very different 'undisclosed statements' about the car parked in Avondale crescent made by Margaret Thompson and Doreen Milne.No real explanation either about the driver of an MM that morning with same car reg in green bobble hat seen far far from London am the same green bobble hat that was seen on the enlarged images in colour of what was found in the murder car---just something about mileage details which could or could not have explained/countered it----but did not because we simply don't know how accurate Gregsten's notes were!tHey called it the 'high water mark of non'disclosure ' but nobody bothered to attend to it properly ---Why?

This evidence would totally contradict that of Trower and Skillett-the only people ever to have made a positive s[?]sighting --but already contradicted by the other two witnesses that were with them at the time[Blackhall and Hogan]
so that leaves just Valerie Storie as a witness.
Her 'eye witness + voice recognition' would be bowled out of court today.She had altered her 1st identikit descriptionof 26th August to the August 31st decription[ that had him with icy blue ones---yet the first identikit was directed by herself and
described a man with an oval jawline totally unlike Hanratty's who -in both identikit pics -had dark eyes and a clear hairline---again totally different from the widows peak hair line of Hanratty and his light blue eyes--
Not just that but she went on to identify Michael Clark-ie on her first identity parade.What if he had not been a volunteer? Would he have swung to?

Hi again Natalie - these points are of course extra to that of the sweetshop. Whilst they do not establish Hanratty's innocence, I am sympathetic to them, particularly when added together, casting doubt upon the safety of his conviction.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Courts of Appeal are notorious for upholding an original verdict. I remember reading the statistics and it was something like only two out of every 50 Appeal cases ever get upheld, mainly due to the fact that the Appeal judges know that the case has already been tried (by a friend probably) and deliberated by a jury, at taxpayers' expense.

Because of the facts as we know them today the Appeal should have been upheld due to a mis-trial. Evidence that would help the defence was either withheld from the defence team, lost by the police, or fabricated by them (I'm referring specifically to the notes made by the first person on the scene - the student conducting a traffic Census). The eye witness accounts were all extremely dodgy (for want of a better word).

As for the sweetshop alibi - it is conclusive, by this reasoning:

Hanratty was definitely in London ALL DAY AND NIGHT of the 21st. Proved and agreed by everybody to be beyond doubt.

Mrs. Dinwoodie was only in her sweetshop on the 21st and the 22nd. Therefore Hanratty could only have been in Liverpool on the 22nd.

The idea that he employed another man to go into this sweetshop is ludicrous. If this was the case wouldn't he have told this man (presumably a Hanrarry lookalike) to make as much fuss as possible, not just meekly ask for Tarleton Road?

Hi Louisa - I assure you that I am very well aware of matters concerning the Court of Appeal.

For me, the sweetshop alibi is inconclusive as it was not clearly and unequivocally supported by Mrs Dinwoodie.

Best regards,

OneRound

[louisa]

You'll have to forgive me because the only knowledge of the law is what I have read and my own interpretation of it.

Mrs. Dinwoodie found herself in a formal court of law as a witness in a murder trial. A daunting experience for anyone, and it seems she was confused at times. However, she wasn't confused as to the days she worked at the sweetshop - the 21st and the 22nd.

As Hanratty was in London on the 21st then the only other day she could have seen him was the 22nd. Agreed?

I would say that the jury were even more confused than poor old Mrs. Olive Dinwoodie and Mrs. Grace Jones put together. They must have been baffled by the amount of conflictions, contradictions and coincidences in this many faceted trial. Does anyone know if any of the jury members have ever spoken out?

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

With regard to other possible police suspects in the A6 Case, it has been commented upon many times in the past that a very large part of the official police files were never made public. Whether they were all made available to either the defence or the prosecution, obviously I don't know. However, the point I'm trying to make is that it is extremely unlikely that Hanratty and Alphon were the only suspects, and there are hints in the various writings on the case that the police interviewed a number of persons prior to either Alphon or, later, Hanratty being in the frame. The police needed to be seen as being on the ball. Naturally, anyone who was hauled in as part of the A6 inquiries would very likely not wish to publicise the fact. I can't recall anyone, over the intervening years, coming out with a story along the lines "I was suspected as being the A6 killer", even though such a story would be potentially profitable.

One small side story: do you recall that a former military policeman at RAF Halton once claimed that he'd guarded Hanratty when the police organised an identity-parade at Halton? I can't recall the policeman's name, but it'll be somewhere on this thread. He said that the man he claimed was Hanratty was very nervous and smoked all the time - as we all know, Hanratty was a non-smoker. I wonder if the guy the policeman was guarding was a genuine 'other suspect' who perhaps at a later date the policeman connectedwith Hanratty? Little wonder he was smoking heavily if Acott had got the arm on him for the A6, whoever he was.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham, a happy new year to you.

Yes, you are right. It is probable that there were other suspects. For example, Woffinden describes how a man walked into Cannon Row police station on 5 September and spent some time being interviewed by police. It is possible this man was someone who 'confessed' to the crime as he appears to have walked into the police station of his own accord. However, it is equally possible that he went to the police station because enquiries were, apprarently, made among known gangsters, police informers etc about whether anything was known about the crime. Perhaps he was asked to 'pop in for a chat'.

However, what is true is that early in the investigation, on 27 August, attention was drawn to the behaviour of Peter Alphon. This was the result of an appeal being made to landladies/landlords/hoteliers etc for information about anyone behaving suspiciously. Acott's approach in making this appeal followed a pattern as Podola, the police killer, had thus been identified in
1959. I do think that Acott's enquiries and style were governed by his belief that a certain 'type' of person committed the crime and that his subsequent investigation reflected this. However, we must also consider that at one stage he also considered it may have been a 'gas meter job'. I feel that, had Valerie not been raped, this idea may have prevailed and may have changed the direction and style of the investigation.

YOu make an excellent point concerning the military policeman. Had the suspect been Hanratty, and he was smoking uncharacteristically due to nerves, it would have been very apparent that he was not a regular smoker as it would have resulted in much coughing and spluttering. This policeman could very well have been guarding a different suspect, or he could have been 'writing himself into the script' by making up the story and just assuming that Hanratty would have been a smoker as a great majority of young men were in those days.

Regards

Julie

[Limehouse]

Hi again Julie - I completely agree there was ''no forensic advantage to doing such a thing in those days''.

The advantage to the police and prosecution was Hanratty's identification of the hanky and admission in court that it was his. Sorry to labour the point but how could Hanratty do that?

It must have needed something a lot more unique than just the colour of the hanky. Possibly initials or some other distinctive monogramme. That then takes me back to my earlier question today. Why didn't Acott inform the media of the monogramme immediately the hanky was found? Or did the monogramme magically appear between the hanky being found on the bus and appearing in court?

Best regards,

OneRound

Good points OneRound - and if the hanky did have some sort of identifying feature that was not mentioned by Acott in an appeal as part of the investigation early on, why didn't the defence make much of this at the trial?

Regards

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

You'll have to forgive me because the only knowledge of the law is what I have read and my own interpretation of it.

Mrs. Dinwoodie found herself in a formal court of law as a witness in a murder trial. A daunting experience for anyone, and it seems she was confused at times. However, she wasn't confused as to the days she worked at the sweetshop - the 21st and the 22nd.

As Hanratty was in London on the 21st then the only other day she could have seen him was the 22nd. Agreed?

I would say that the jury were even more confused than poor old Mrs. Olive Dinwoodie and Mrs. Grace Jones put together. They must have been baffled by the amount of conflictions, contradictions and coincidences in this many faceted trial. Does anyone know if any of the jury members have ever spoken out?

The judge did his best to try to let the jury know he did not think the case was strong enough,he warned them over several matters-especially when after 5 hours they returned to ask him the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
As the judge explained there and then and as David Lewes noted, Sheriff of Bedford and a lawyer ,present throughout the trial-by them merely asking such a question it indicated some were in doubt......
It was never a 'strong case'----far from it.The general belief among reporters [and in betting shops] was that Hanratty would be acquitted at the committal at Ampthill ,but there had been such huge publicity and consequent thirst for a trial the Bedford jury at the acquittal were persuaded it needed to go to trial.
Mrs Dinwoodie had originally said ,remembering the event from two months previously,that it was either the Monday or the Tuesday.She only came to the conclusion it was on the Monday because her granddaughter had been there throughout the day on Monday but not the Tuesday and Hanratty himself had said there had been a young girl there serving with her.
It was only later that Barbara Ford was interviewed and remembered she had also been in the shop late in the afternoon.Her friend Linda Walton said they were there for an hour between 4 and 5 pm-Barbara thought it was half an hour.Her friend said she had served lolly ices and sweets to children and that Mrs Dinwoodie had been quite busy[and she was actually not very well]
because the Liverpool Echo had arrived.
A reporter from the Daily Herald ,Don Smith,one of the very first to interview her and one of Liverpool's most experienced crime reporters said Dinwoodie told Smith she was 'fairly sure the man came in on the Tuesday'.
He believed he was the first journalist ever to interview her.It was only after so many people had 'interviewed' her that she changed it to MOnday!Hmmmnnnn!

[louisa]

Hi Natalie

Mrs. Dinwoodie's unsure recollection of which day it was is actually immaterial because it could only have been on the 22nd that she saw him.

[OneRound]

Hi Natalie

Mrs. Dinwoodie's unsure recollection of which day it was is actually immaterial because it could only have been on the 22nd that she saw him.

Louisa - you're joking, right?

[louisa]

OneRound - Pease explain your reason for disputing this fact. I'm very interested. Thanks.

[Natalie Severn]

Louisa - you're joking, right?

Michael Sherrard stated -in May 2002on the Horizon programme 'If Mrs Dinwoodie was anything like right she placed him in her shop on 22nd August"
and he goes on to say that this was taken very seriously indeed by the prosecution-in this case by both Acott and Swanwick who went so far,he continued,to suggest Hanratty must have taken a plane from Speke Airport[Acott] and that he may have paid a 'lookalike' to go into the shop and ask for Tarleton or Carlton Road [Swanwick].

Louisa is right over this in the sense that as an alibi to him being in Liverpool on that day [22nd] it is clearly as strong as it could be despite there being no written proof of the specific day and Mrs Dinwoodie being herself uncertain,and having stated she was uncertain of the day to both prosecution and defence teams in previous interviews because Hanratty stated a girl was with her.She therefore thought it must have been the Monday .In fact once Linda Walton confirmed Barbara Ford was with her on the Tuesday and they both went back to the shop between 4 and 5 pm on the Tuesday when she remembered and Barbara remembered that Barbara had gone behind the counter and served sweets there to children -while Mrs Dinwoodie busied herself over the newly arrived Liverpool echo-the jigsaw pieces can be seen to fit perfectly well for the Tuesday.......
JH sent the telegram to France from the forecourt of St George's Hall on the evening of the Thursday [24th]
so by Acott's reasoning JH was up and down to Liverpool on planes and trains in those three days like nobody's business -----yet nobody ever came forward either then or since then to say "hey-wait a minute-I saw him in London in Euston on the 23rd or at Speke airport or at Louise Anderson's or Charles France's or the Rehearsal Club etc etc '-------The only people who came forward were 11 people from Rhyl and the 4 from Liverpool---ie 2 from Mrs Dinwoodie's shop[Linda didn't remember him] , the chap with the damaged hand in Lime St left luggage[Usher] and Robert Kempt from Reynold's Billiard Hall who said JH had tried to sell him a gold watch etc Liverpool

[OneRound]

Louisa - in fundamental terms and most circumstances, for ar an alibi to be effective it has to be demonstrated that the defendant was somewhere else when the offence concerned was committed.

In other words, it has to be time bound and related. Caz has explained this well and probably much better in the past.

This is why Hanratty's assertions about ''the green bath'' are meaningless in isolation. Hanratty might well have slept in the room with the green bath. He could even have bathed in it. However, that doesn't help Hanratty one bit if the time that Hanratty stayed in that room cannot be shown. Hanratty can say he saw the green bath but the green bath cannot say it saw Hanratty, let alone when which is of such crucial importance.

Natalie fights your corner and Hanratty's case regarding the sweetshop strongly above. However, the principal witness Mrs Dinwoodie, whom the defence would have expected to back up Hanratty, gave a sworn statement that the event was on a different day. This doesn't disprove Hanratty's claim but it certainly introduces doubt and makes the situation anything but clear and unequivocal. That has to be to the detriment of Hanratty and his supporters.

I don't have my file papers with me at the moment but if you then add the comments of the lorry driver in the sweetshop into the mix, things become more unclear and unhelpful for Hanratty.

You cannot pick and choose only the bits you want from your witnesses. Before you and Natalie point it out, I know it seems the police did at times but that is for another chapter.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Michael Sherrard stated -in May 2002on the Horizon programme 'If Mrs Dinwoodie was anything like right she placed him in her shop on 22nd August"
and he goes on to say that this was taken very seriously indeed by the prosecution-in this case by both Acott and Swanwick who went so far,he continued,to suggest Hanratty must have taken a plane from Speke Airport[Acott] and that he may have paid a 'lookalike' to go into the shop and ask for Tarleton or Carlton Road [Swanwick].

Louisa is right over this in the sense that as an alibi to him being in Liverpool on that day [22nd] it is clearly as strong as it could be despite there being no written proof of the specific day and Mrs Dinwoodie being herself uncertain,and having stated she was uncertain of the day to both prosecution and defence teams in previous interviews because Hanratty stated a girl was with her.She therefore thought it must have been the Monday .In fact once Linda Walton confirmed Barbara Ford was with her on the Tuesday and they both went back to the shop between 4 and 5 pm on the Tuesday when she remembered and Barbara remembered that Barbara had gone behind the counter and served sweets there to children -while Mrs Dinwoodie busied herself over the newly arrived Liverpool echo-the jigsaw pieces can be seen to fit perfectly well for the Tuesday.......
JH sent the telegram to France from the forecourt of St George's Hall on the evening of the Thursday [24th]
so by Acott's reasoning JH was up and down to Liverpool on planes and trains in those three days like nobody's business -----yet nobody ever came forward either then or since then to say "hey-wait a minute-I saw him in London in Euston on the 23rd or at Speke airport or at Louise Anderson's or Charles France's or the Rehearsal Club etc etc '-------The only people who came forward were 11 people from Rhyl and the 4 from Liverpool---ie 2 from Mrs Dinwoodie's shop[Linda didn't remember him] , the chap with the damaged hand in Lime St left luggage[Usher] and Robert Kempt from Reynold's Billiard Hall who said JH had tried to sell him a gold watch etc Liverpool

Hi Natalie - have only just seen this post of yours and after my reply to Louisa.

As just mentioned to Louisa, I don't have my file papers with me at the moment. However, if memory serves me right, one thing in your post leaps out with regard to the need for an alibi to be time bound and related.

You mention Robert Kempt from the steps of the billiard hall. I don't think he ever identified Hanratty as the would be seller of the gold watch. However, even if he did, I'm pretty sure Kempt said the event could have occurrred anytime during a three month period. Assuming I'm right on that, the evidential worth of it to Hanratty becomes meaningless as it has no context within the time of the crime.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

But One Round,Mr Harding's logbooks seen and pointed out to him by Paul Foot in 1970 , showed he got back earlier on the Tuesday so that if anything he arrived back earlier than on the Monday when he had made local calls and if anything his log books showed that it was more likely he had gone into the shop in time for the conversation with Mrs Dinwoodie on the Tuesday-pages 206 and 207 Foot.

[Natalie Severn]

Robert Kempt said 'it was before the 26th August when I went on holiday.He said he would not be able to identify him but that he was young-in his mid twenties and slight.
It is when all the Rhyl people who speak of the 22nd and 23rd and Euston's Da Costa all talk about seeing him then-three mentioning his curious hair colouring -all these taken together with Mrs Dinwoodie and Barbara and the gold watch story which both Kempt and Dutton refer to which JH said happened with Kempt on 22nd and Trevor Dutton said happened on 23rd respectively,that you see a combination of accounts adding up to his sighting,underlined by the telegram and the total absence of him being seen anywhere but Euston,Rhyl or Liverpool from the morning of 22nd through to his return to London on 24/25 overnight train from LIverpool Lime Street which nobody followed up incidently.
Contrast this with the contradicted sightings of Trower and Skillett and apart from Valerie Storie there isnt a soul who saw Hanratty down South on any of the above dates.Astonishing stuff since in the context of Valerie's amended dark eyes to icy blue eyes /oval jawed Identikit stuff followed by her misidntification of Michael Clark could have had two chaps swinging......